On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> And this does not strike you as adding a whole extra level of complexity
> that is completely unnecessary, compared to just giving a single measurement
> for each of the first or last stops along the gradient path? The total
> (100%) gradient path length is going to be either the distance between two
> corners, or a distance determined by an author-specified angle (the
> "outside" distance). Any pointed plotted in a 2-dimensional space, as with
> <bg-position>, can also be found in a line that intersects the gradient path
> at a right angle.
>
> I would much rather err on the side of keeping the grammar simple, than on
> adding complexity that would only matter tiny bit, and only then for a tiny,
> tiny, tiny fraction of the times they are used.
I'm not adding any complexities, and this is not directly related to
gradients at all. If people can't easily understand the <bg-position>
syntax they'll have trouble using it *in the background-position
property*.
This is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to rephrase the
explanation of <bg-position> in Backgrounds and Borders under the
background-position property in a way that makes more sense.
Do you have any comments about what I actually wrote?
~TJ